The World and Everything in It: February 13, 2023

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Striking truck drivers leave wet concrete in trucks to pressure their employer. Is that allowed under labor laws?

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Also today the Monday Moneybeat: Listener questions on cutting government and reducing public debt. Economist David Bahnsen will be along.

And the WORLD History Book. 100 years ago, exploring an ancient Egyptian tomb.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, February 13th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Now news with Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Turkey probes contractors as earthquake deaths pass 33,000 » Turkey is cracking down on contractors it says cut corners when building many of the buildings that crumbled to the ground during earthquakes last week.

Turkish prosecutors say they’re investigating more than 130 people connected to the construction of buildings that now lie in ruin.

AUDIO: [Applause, shouts]

Meanwhile rescue workers are pulling survivors from the rubble of those buildings, but hopes are shrinking for the families of those who are still missing.

Organizations like the U.S.-based Virginia Task Force 1 are helping with search and rescue efforts. Task Force member John Morrison says his team isn’t giving up.

MORRISON: The hope of being able to rescue somebody that really pushes us forward and the ability to represent the United States and USA ID. It makes us happy and I'm proud to be here and we're happy to help our fellows, our fellow man.

The death toll for the earthquakes has risen past 33,000 and more than 80,000 others are injured.

More objects shot down over North America » Members of Congress are questioning U.S. air defenses after American fighter jets shot down three more unidentified objects over North America in the past week.

Democratic Senator Jon Tester:

TESTER: What's gone on the last, you know, two weeks or so 10 days has been nothing short of craziness and the military needs to have a plan to not only determine what's out there but determine the dangers that go with it.

Cylindrical objects were shot down over Alaska and Northern Canada. Another smaller balloon-like object drifted over Lake Huron before U.S. forces took it down.

Republican Congressman Nick LaLota:

LaLOTA: The Chinese Communist Party is testing our intelligence and our responses to their intelligence gathering capabilities right here in our own sovereign territories. Congress has a lot of questions to ask about who knew what and when.

The downing of the three objects comes after a Chinese spy balloon floated over the United States for roughly a week before a U.S. fighter jet shot it down off the Carolina coast.

U.S. forces strike in Somalia » And in Somalia, another U.S. airstrike over the weekend killed 12 al-Shabaab terrorists. WORLD’s Josh Schumacher has more.

JOSH SCHUMACHER, REPORTER: The strike brings the total number of al-Shabaab fighters killed in airstrikes to 48 in just this year.

The U.S. military command in Africa said it believes no civilians died in this weekend’s attack.

U.S. forces have supported Somali troops since President Biden approved sending them to the country last May. Former President Donald Trump removed troops from the country in 2020.

For WORLD, I’m Josh Schumacher.

Military recruitment hurdles » The U.S. Army is missing its recruiting goals. The oldest U.S. military branch signed up about 45,000 new recruits last year. But it was aiming for 60,000.

Army marketing officials say that while potential recruits respect the Army, they don’t see it as relevant to their lives and they aren’t ready to potentially put their lives on the line in military service.

Russia Olympics » Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over the weekend criticized the International Olympic Committee’s decision to let athletes from Russia and Belarus compete in the 2024 Olympics.

The Olympic Committee said the athletes could not compete under their national colors. Zelenskyy says that doesn’t make a difference.

ZELENSKYY: If representatives of a terrorist state appear at international sports competitions or the Olympic Games, will it matter if they are there without their national symbols?

Russian athletes have been banned rom wearing their country’s flag at prior Olympics due to doping scandals.

Chiefs win Super Bowl » The Kansas City Chiefs are Super Bowl Champions.

AUDIO: [Celebration]

A crowd heard there gathered in Kansas City to watch what turned into a bit of a nail-biter.

Harrison Butker kicked a 27-yard field goal with 8 seconds left after Patrick Mahomes broke off a 26-yard run, lifting the Chiefs to a 38-35 win over the Philadelphia Eagles.

Mahomes was playing on a sprained ankle, but he said there was no way he’d let that stop him.

MAHOMES: Yeah, I told y’all this week, there was nothing that was going to keep me off that football field. And I just want to shout out my teammates man. We challenged each other. It took everybody to win this football game. So, shout out to my teammates. We’re Super Bowl champs, baby, let’s go!

This is the Chiefs’ third Super Bowl victory in franchise history. 

“He gets us” Super Bowl commercial » For some casual fans, the commercials are the best part of the Super Bowl. Many of the most creative and buzzworthy ads run during the big game. But this year, in between ads for Pepsi and potato chips was something more substantial, two commercials advertising Jesus.

AUDIO: He Gets Us is a multi-year national campaign to raise the respect and relevance of Jesus in our culture.

The campaign funded mostly by large anonymous donors paid for two Super Bowl ads. Those slots were going for $7 million for 30 seconds. He Gets Us aired a 30-second spot in the second quarter and a 60-second commercial later in the game.

Microsoft suspends relationship with group blacklisting conservative news » Microsoft has suspended its relationship with a group accused of blacklisted conservatives.

The Washington Examiner says the Microsoft-owned ad company Xandr previously subscribed to the Global Disinformation Index’s blacklist of conservative websites. The Examiner based its reports on whistleblowers and leaked data from Xandr.

Microsoft said after the report that it would no longer allow Xandr to subscribe to the Global Disinformation Index.

I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead on the Legal Docket: a concrete mixing company goes up against a labor union.

Plus, the Monday Moneybeat.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Monday morning, February 13th and you’re listening to The World and Everything in It from WORLD Radio. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Legal Docket.

Well, seven years ago today on this date. It was a Saturday in February 2016, and Nick you called me up with news that Justice Antonin Scalia had died. I gotta say, it knocked the breath out of me.

EICHER: I’m surprised I even had the breath to say it! It was one of those events where you remember where you were and what you were doing when you heard the terrible news.

REICHARD: Right, but I want to mark that anniversary, because it’s the first one since the reversal of Roe versus Wade. So sorry he didn’t live to see the day.

I was in law school when President Ronald Reagan appointed Scalia to the high court. As a twenty-something, reading his opinions—and especially his dissents!—made quite an impression. The clarity of his thought, his obvious love of the Constitution, the way he practiced his faith, I admired him so much.

So, in Justice Scalia’s honor and to illustrate how his thinking eventually took hold in the court last year when it overturned Roe, I want to share with you some audio. Here’s Justice Scalia back in 2012. It’s from an interview he did on CNN with Piers Morgan.

MORGAN: Let's turn to Roe v. Wade, because you, Justice Scalia, you had very strong opinions about it at the time. I know you do now, why were you so violently opposed to it?

SCALIA: I wouldn't say violently. I'm a peaceful man! Adamantly opposed.

MORGAN: Adamantly.

SCALIA: Basically, because the theory that was expounded to impose that decision was a theory that does not make any sense….

MORGAN: Should abortion be illegal in your eyes?

SCALIA: Should it be illegal?

MORGAN: Yeah.

SCALIA: I don't, I don't have public views on what should be illegal and what shouldn't. I have public views on what the Constitution prohibits and what it doesn't prohibit.

MORGAN: But the Constitution when they framed it, they didn’t even allow women the right to vote. They gave women no rights.

SCALIA: Oh, come on. NO rights?

MORGAN: Did they?

SCALIA: Of course, they were entitled to due process of law….My view is regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion is good, or whether you think prohibiting abortion is bad, regardless of how you come out on that, my only point is the Constitution does not say anything about it. It leaves it up to democratic choice. Some states prohibited it, some states didn't. What Roe versus Wade said was that no state can prohibit it. That is simply not in the Constitution.

Morgan then asked how Justice Scalia can keep his personal sense of right and wrong out of his decisions on the court:

MORGAN: Because clearly as a conservative Catholic, you’re going to be fundamentally against abortion. 

SCALIA: Just as the pro choice people say the Constitution prohibits the banning of abortion. So also the pro life people say the opposite. They say that the Constitution requires the banning of abortion, because you're depriving someone of life without due process of law. I reject that argument just as I reject the other one. The Constitution in fact says nothing at all about the subject. It is left to democratic choice. Now, regardless of what my views as a Catholic are, the Constitution says nothing about it.

EICHER: You said it earlier: If only he could’ve lived long enough to see the court finally right that grave wrong of Roe vs. Wade with the Dobbs decision!

REICHARD: Well, I think it’s interesting that one of the deciding votes in Dobbs was a Scalia clerk back in the day: Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

EICHER: Let’s move on to our one oral argument for today. The Supreme Court heard argument in this one last month.

It’s a dispute between a labor union and a concrete mixing company.

The company is Glacier Northwest, based in Seattle.

It makes custom batches of concrete for specific uses. Once mixed, it goes into the rotating drum of a truck and then delivered to the customer that same day. Timeliness matters with concrete. With time it can become useless and can end up damaging the trucks.

REICHARD: Glacier’s 90 or so truck drivers are represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Back in 2017, negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement seemed at an impasse. So union officials came up with a plan: load up the trucks with concrete, then have the truckers walk off the job.

That led to destruction of the concrete, costing the company in sales and the cost to have the ruined concrete removed.

So the company sued the union in state court for intentional destruction of property.

And the case wound its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Noel Francisco is lawyer for the concrete company:

FRANCISCO: First, this is not a case about the mere stoppage of work. Here, the union had the workers show up, accept possession of the concrete, begin deliveries of the concrete, abandon those deliveries when it was too late to save the concrete, and then countermand supervisor instructions to complete the deliveries that had already been started, which at that point in time was the only way to save the concrete. It's really no different than the riverboat crew that drives out into the middle of the river and then abandons ship. That is not merely a stoppage of work.

EICHER: The point of a mere stoppage of work, the point of a strike is to gain leverage against the employer and the only real leverage is some economic harm.

The company says what the union did went far beyond that. In the company’s view, this was coordinated sabotage.

But the union grounds its argument in provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. It argues this federal law preempts the company’s claims.

Labor lawyer Darin Dalmat:

DALMAT: Glacier sued Local 174 over a concerted work stoppage, conduct at the heart of the Act's protections. Under settled law, strikers lose those protections if they fail to take reasonable precautions to avoid aggravated, imminent, foreseeable harm to employer property.

REICHARD: Dalmat points out his client did take “reasonable precautions:”

DALMAT: On the record shows the union instructed the drivers to return their trucks to Glacier's facility, which all the drivers did, thereby putting Glacier in a position to use its ordinary tools for handling leftover concrete, such as reclaimers, ecology block forms, and retardants. The union also told drivers to return their trucks with the drums running….the concrete does not even begin to harden until the drums stop turning. As a result, no harm came to Glacier's trucks or facility.

No harm to the trucks, but non-union staff had to scramble to save the trucks, build bunkers to hold the concrete, dump it, then break it up and pay to have it hauled off. And of course the product, the concrete, was ruined.

These are specific facts related to a specific strike. So the legal question for the justices is just when should a case like this be preempted?

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sought clarification:

JACKSON: Yes, economic harm is being inflicted when you stop work.

DALMAT: Intentionally.

JACKSON: You intentionally stop the work, but the question is, can you do something that actually intends to affect the property directly to make the property unsalvageable. We can't get new people in here as a result of the strike and pick up where we left off because you literally burned down the factory. We agree that you can't burn down the factory, right?

DALMAT: We absolutely agree you cannot burn down the factory. (Laughter.)

JACKSON: Okay. All right.

DALMAT: You cannot smash things.

EICHER: So no burning, no smashing and over all of this is a Supreme Court decision from 1959. It’s called San Diego Buildings Trade Council v Garmon. That said federal law preempts state court litigation that’s connected to conduct protected under the labor-relations act. It says when actions by either employees or employers are “arguably” protected by the act, that dispute must be heard first by the National Labor Relations Board—the N-L-R-B.

REICHARD: You can probably hear the problem.

“Arguably” is a word whose meaning can be, well, argued.

For decades now, courts have decided whether certain conduct is or isn’t “arguably protected” by federal labor law. If it is protected by federal labor law, those cases go to the NLRB. Not to the courts.

But who makes that threshold decision of whether a certain set of facts, like leaving trucks filled with wet concrete, is protected union activity?

Francisco for the company made it clear:

FRANCISCO: We’d prefer not to be before an administrative agency where the agency is the judge, jury, and executioner. We prefer to be in a court system where we have a neutral judge and the potential for a jury.

EICHER: The federal government also filed a brief in this case, supporting neither party. It recommends remanding the case because of a procedural error made by the Washington State Supreme Court.

Assistant to the Solicitor General Vivek Suri must have been cheered by this exchange with Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

SOTOMAYOR: Tell me how to write this decision.

SURI: I'd suggest copying our brief, Your Honor. (Laughter.)

SOTOMAYOR: I know, but your brief was whatever number of pages, 30-odd pages. Give it to me in two paragraphs.

KAGAN: A summary of the argument.

SOTOMAYOR: Summary of the argument.

SURI: The National Labor Relations Act protects the right to strike, but workers have a corresponding responsibility to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable, imminent harm to the employer’s property. In this case, accepting the allegations in the employer's complaint as true, such precautions were not taken. Therefore, the conduct was not even arguably protected, and the Washington Supreme Court's decision is reversed.

My best guess is that the justices will remand. Labor lawyers are watching this carefully. The eventual decision could leave unions with a lot more legal liability for what happens in the run-up to and during a strike.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Next up on The World and Everything in It: the Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s time to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen. He’s head of the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group and he’s here now.

David, good morning!

DAVID BAHNSEN, GUEST: Good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

EICHER: Should we start with markets? The WSJ reported, “​​S&P 500 Turns In Worst Week So Far This Year.” Big story after the market close on Friday, but is it the important market story?

BAHNSEN: No, I mean, the market’s been on fire and so the fact that it had one week that was down a bit isn't much of a story. The S&P was up Friday. It had been down some other days. And yeah, it was a down week, but I think it's important that when things happen, and we're doing this week by week, that when the market's up in week or down in a week that we do our best to always remind listeners that markets are supposed to be invested in for more than one week at a time.

EICHER: David, we have time for two listener questions and they’re two sides of the same coin. Here’s the first:

BRIGGS: Hi my name is Nate. You mentioned a few weeks back that most people in America don't have any specific ideas on what the government could cut spending on. This is something I've wondered a lot about and I'm wondering from your perspective: Do you have any specific recommendations?

All right, David, this puts me in mind of the heckling during the State of the Union last week over Social Security. Republicans jeered President Biden because he referred to a GOP senator’s plan from a year ago. The plan would sunset all federal programs—including entitlements, meaning Social Security. And Republicans do not want that hung around their necks.

Now, to be fair, and to the point you’ve made a few times here, Republicans talk a good game when it comes to cutting spending.

But to the listener question: Nate’s asking for specifics. What recommendations would you make to cut federal government spending?

BAHNSEN: Well, I think that before one evaluates what they would cut in spending, it's very helpful to know how we presently spend money, what do we spend money on? And it's one of the reasons that it's so difficult to have an intelligent conversation about government spending without talking about entitlements. When the former President Donald Trump intervenes to say we will not touch entitlements, when the Republicans accept the political challenges that referring to entitlement reform include, all we're saying is we're not serious about doing anything with spending. Because that's where the issue really is. We spend a grand total of 8% of total federal outlays on the interest expense of our debt. We spend a grand total of 12% on military and national defense. There is something around 20% that goes to running of government and various other programs, some of which are discretionary. And so there is certain areas within that that I'm sure cuts could be found. But then there is 60%—six, zero—in what we would call transfer payments: 19% Social Security, 15% in healthcare, 14% in income security, and 12% in Medicare. At the end of the day, not taking away benefits from people currently receiving benefits, but some form of entitlement reform—no matter how politically inconvenient it is to discuss—is not just the best way, it's the only way. There is not going to be any reduction of spending that makes a whiff of a dent in deficits or national debt apart from entitlement reform. Period.

EICHER: Now to the other side of the coin. We’ve talked about avoiding new indebtedness. But now I have a question about current indebtedness.

Steve Kemp of Ames, Iowa, writes: “[The] balanced budget amendment … only stops the bleeding and doesn’t necessarily do anything about the enormous swelling that has already taken place. What are the various strategies that could be considered for removing the national debt? And what are the consequences of doing so, now that the national debt is so baked-in to our economic condition?”

The listener also said in his email that he appreciates your common sense and says it’s “always fresh and welcome.” That’s good.

BAHNSEN: Well, I appreciate that very much. And the question about how we reduce the principal balance of the national debt is one that can only be addressed when you've stopped adding. And since we've had something like two years in the last 70 years where we weren't adding to the debt, it's hardly an accepted pre-condition. If we got to the point where we were adding no monies to the national debt, that there was a $0 budget deficit on an annual basis, and yet the $31 trillion was still sitting over our heads, that would be the largest fiscal victory we could ever claim. And so the notion of further debt reduction is so far away from present reality, so far away from anybody's policy intent or conversation it is somewhat pollyannish to think about, yet I certainly appreciate the question, because it's where I'd love to see things go. And of course, the answer is that when you make a principal payment on debt, as it matures—all of our debt is essentially treasury bonds—when you pay off a bond, you reduce the debt and the way to not have the debt go higher and in fact go lower is to not issue new bonds. In other words, you're paying down one but not adding another. We only pay down our bonds by issuing new bonds. And so how do you actually get to the point of doing that? Well, you have economic growth. And so economic growth produces more revenues than are needed for your fixed expenses, because you've now got a balanced budget. You're not allowing these expenses to blow out higher every year. And that produces surplus revenue to pay down debt. Now, that's the basic back of napkin financial answer. But I just want to be very clear, it's not even in the stratosphere of reality at this point in time.

EICHER: All right, you may have a question for David Bahnsen.

If so, send it on over. The email address is feedback@worldandeverything.com. You have the choice of typing out your question or sending it in the form of an audio file attachment. I’ll summarize for you or play your audio on the air. We certainly prefer hearing your question in your own voice.

So if you have a smartphone, I’d ask that you make use of the voice memo app. Doesn’t have to be perfect. If you mess up—as I do so frequently—just back up a few words and start over. We’ll fix it up and it’ll sound great.

Again, feedback@worldandeverything.com.

Thank you to Nate Briggs and Steve Kemp this week.

And special thanks to David Bahnsen.

David is founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. His personal website is Bahnsen.com.

See you next time.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, February 13th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Fifty years ago this week, the American Secretary of State visited China for a historic meeting with Chairman Mao. And not long after that, Elvis won a Grammy for his version of a well-known hymn.

EICHER: But first, the 100th anniversary of an English explorer opening a famous tomb. WORLD’s Harrison Watters did the research, and here is Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER: Archeologist Howard Carter arrived in Egypt in 1907. He was there to supervise tomb excavations. In 1914 the Egyptian government granted him permission to begin searching for hidden tombs in Egypt’s Valley of the Kings. The work went on for seven years without success. Carter’s benefactor Lord Carnarvon gave him an ultimatum: Find an intact tomb within one year, or come home for good.

While most of the tombs in the area had been looted long before, Carter believed that grave robbers had missed the tomb of a short-lived boy pharaoh named Tutankhamun. In November 1922, the expedition’s water-boy found the top of a staircase leading into the ground. When Carter investigated, he discovered a sealed tomb.

CLIP: Carter immediately sent a telegram to Lord Carnarvon, who was in England at the time, informing him that he had discovered an intact tomb.

After months of excavation, the burial chamber was ready to be opened. On February 16th, Carter entered the tomb’s antechamber and took his place in front of the door.

Here is Carter’s reflection of the moment from a Librivox recording of his book, The Tomb of Tut-Ankh-Amen.

CARTER (read by AVAILLE): Before us laid a sealed door, and with its opening we were to blot out the centuries and stand in the presence of a king who reigned 3000 years ago. My own feelings as I mounted the platform were a strange mixture, and it was with a trembling hand that I struck the first blow.

After dismantling the door, Carter stood in a tomb full of treasures. At the center was the shrine that contained King Tut’s sarcophagus.

CARTER (read by AVAILLE): I think at the moment we did not even want to break the seal, for a feeling of intrusion had descended heavily upon us, with the opening of the doors.

After months of careful excavation, Carter removed the sarcophagus from its resting place, but not before his patron Lord Carnarvon died from an infected mosquito bite in April.

While many books and movies tell the story of the Pharaoh’s curse that supposedly killed thirteen people soon after opening the tomb, Carter lived another 16 years. He died from Hodgkin's Disease in 1939.

Next, the Secretary of State goes to China.

In the 1970s, Henry Kissinger believed that America’s biggest China problem was a lack of communication.

HENRY KISSINGER: When Nixon came into office there had been no significant communications between China and the United States For 25 years.

Audio from a Nixon Foundation video.

As President Nixon’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Kissinger built a network of connections that led him to a secret meeting with Premier Zhou Enlai in 1971. Later that year, President Nixon made a surprising announcement.

RICHARD NIXON: Premier Zhou Enlai on behalf of the government of the People's Republic of China has extended an invitation to President Nixon to visit China at an appropriate date before May 1972. President Nixon has accepted the invitation with pleasure.

In the aftermath of Nixon’s visit, Kissinger returned to China in February, 1973, to discuss foreign policy, lines of communication, and trade between the two nations. Chairman Mao joked that the only thing China had in surplus was women.

But Mao was more seriously concerned that by pushing the Soviets to leave Europe, the U.S. might be encouraging Russia to attack his country. Kissinger promised that the U.S. would “never knowingly cooperate in an attack on China.” He explained that the U.S.’s goal would be to discourage a Soviet attack rather than defeat one.

Later that year, Kissinger’s work to establish normal working relations with China earned him a seat in Nixon’s Cabinet as Secretary of State, a post he held until 1977.

Today at 99, Kissinger remains a controversial figure—with a mixed foreign policy legacy. In a 2022 interview with The Economist, Kissinger expressed optimism that despite increased tensions between the US and China, the two nations can still coexist.

KISSINGER: I believe it's necessary. I also believe it's attainable. But I don't believe it's automatic, so we have to define the issues.

And we end today with the King of Rock-n-Roll earning a golden record status for a gospel album.

Between 1959 and 1962, the Recording Academy of the United States nominated Elvis Presley for a Grammy three times for nine different songs‚all Rock-n-roll hits. But in March 1968, it wasn’t “Are You Lonesome Tonight?” or “A Big Hunk O’ Love” that brought Elvis on stage to receive an award. Instead, it was Elvis’s gospel album, “How Great Thou Art.”

CLIP: “Oh Lord my God, when I, in awesome wonder, consider all the worlds thy hands have made…”

After its release, it hit #18 on Billboard charts, and on this week in February 1968, Elvis’s gospel album How Great Thou Art was proclaimed a gold record—passing $1 million in sales.

In March, it won a Grammy for sacred music, and seven years later, Elvis won another Grammy for his live performance of the song.

Jim Murray was a member of The Imperials, the vocal quartet singing with him on the album. Here he remembers how much the song meant to Elvis.

JIM MURRAY: I believe that he got more joy out of singing that song. And I think you can tell when you see the video and when you hear it, this was the soul of Elvis, when he sings that song.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book, I’m Paul Butler.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Stories we are working on for tomorrow: ministerial exceptions in education and the outpouring of aid after the earthquake in Turkey last week.

That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.

WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Psalmist writes: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. (Psalm 19:1-3 ESV)

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.